Madras High Court
M/S.Cholamandalam Investment And ... vs The State Rep By The on 1 March, 2024
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14057 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 01.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14057 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.(MD).No.9035 of 2022
M/s.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance,
Co.Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager,
Mr.Navin Kumar,
S/o.Lakshminarayanan,
No.1887, Muthu Meena Building,
Thanjavur-613001. ... Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
1.The State rep by the
The Inspector of Police,
Thanjavur Town South Police Station,
Thanjavur .
Crime No.536 of 2022 . ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.T.Suresh Kumar ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto
Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.536 of
2022 on the file of the first respondent police, Thanjavur and quash the
same as illegal insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14057 of 2022
For petitioner : Mr.B.Janarth Kumar
For R1 : Mr.B.Nambiselvan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in
Crime No.536 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a Finance
Company. The second respondent/defacto complainant obtained loan
from the petitioner's Company for purchasing a Bolero Pickup vehicle
bearing Reg.No.TN-49-CA-6741. After purchasing the vehicle, he
committed default in making the payment of installments. Thereby, the
petitioner's Company seized the vehicle after following due process of
law. Aggrieved by the same, he made a false complaint before the Law
Enforcing Agency against the petitioner and the same was registered in
Crime No.536 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of
IPC. Challenging the same, present petition has been filed.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is a Finance Company and the second
respondent/defacto complainant obtained a vehicle loan from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14057 of 2022
petitioner's Company in the year 2020. Subsequently, he could not be
able to pay the installments for the past several months. As per the
hypothecation agreement, till the clearance of all installments, the
petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. Thereby, the petitioner's Finance
Company seized the vehicle from him after following due process of law.
Without any iota evidence, he made a false complaint before the Law
Enforcing Agency. Pursuant to which, the Law Enforcing Agency also
registered a case against the petitioner is unsustainable one. The said
issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme
Court of India, in Anup Shrmah Vs.Bholanath Sharma And Others
reported in 2013 (1) SCC 400. Accordingly, he prayed for quashing the
FIR registered against the petitioner by allowing this petition.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State
would submit that the second respondent/defacto complainant made a
complaint before the Law Enforcing Agency as if his vehicle was stolen.
Thereby, the present case has been registered against the petitioner. All
the cases cannot be canvassed by the Law Enforcing Agency.
5.The fact in the present case is not in dispute. Admittedly, the
second respondent/defacto complainant approached the petitioner's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14057 of 2022
Finance Company for obtaining loan for purchasing a Bolero Pickup
vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-49-CA-6741 under hypothecation agreement
dated 12.02.2020. Even in the complaint, he has admitted the fact that he
committed default in making the payment of installments. Hence, he is a
chronic defaulter. After following the due process of law, the vehicle was
rightly seized by the petitioner's Finance Company. But, without
disclosing about the seizure of the vehicle, he made a complaint before
the Law Enforcing Agency and the Law Enforcing Agency also
registered a case against the petitioner is not sustainable one. The similar
issue was already came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Anup Shrmah Vs.Bholanath Sharma And Others reported in
2013 (1) SCC 400. The relevant portion of the said order is as follows:-
“7.In view of the above, the law can be
summarised that in an agreement of hire purchase, the
purchaser remains merely a trustee/bailee on behalf of
the financier/financial institution and ownership
remains with the latter. Thus, in case the vehicle is
seized by the financier, no criminal action can be taken
against him as he is repossessing the goods owned by
him.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14057 of 2022
6.When there was hire purchase agreement, the purchaser remains
merely a trustee/bailee on behalf of the financier/financial institution and
ownership remains with the financial company. Thus, the vehicle was
rightly seized by the financier, no criminal action can be taken against
him. Hence, the the Law Enforcing Agency registered a case against the
petitioner is malicious one and the same is liable to be quashed.
7.Accordingly, the FIR in Crime No.182 of 2022 on the file of the
respondent police is hereby quashed and the Criminal Original Petition
stands allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
01.03.2024
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
dss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14057 of 2022
M.DHANDAPANI. J.
dss
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Thanjavur Town South Police Station,
Thanjavur .
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14057 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.(MD).No.9035 of 2022
01.03.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
